NutJack ... a side-bet jackpot for live poker games

I came up with a side-bet that can be used in live poker games. Players can bet that they have a "NUT HAND". This bet allows players to show the strength of their hand by allowing them to make it during live play. A player can thus use this side-bet to directly affect the live game they're playing!

Click HERE

Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks!

Interesting concept. I'm adding a side bet to our Poker tables (2 of the 6 to start) in the next 60 days or so. It's already live at another location in the State and is doing well.

Good luck to you.


ZCore13

Zcore13: Thanks for your interest. I looked at a thread you started in 2013 called "Is card influencing possible in Texas Hold-em?",
(here it is)
where you claim that the way you hold your hole cards affects the luck of the outcome. That is voodoo baloney, however, as some of viewers pointed out, perhaps it affected your posturing and conveyed hand strength.

My new side-bet jackpot is a "sanctioned" way of showing hand strength... I think it's the first and only time this has even been possible in poker. If I make a $10 bet that I have the nuts, while I'm playing my live table hand, that shows strength, and it doesn't depend upon my body posturing, my stare-downs, my 2-minute delays, my playing with chip stacks or by grabbing the corner of my hole cards. Of course, it might be a bluff as well.

Does anyone see the hidden beauty of this?

Does anyone think this is illegal, or violates any gaming codes?

Quote: discflicker

Zcore13: Thanks for your interest. I looked at a thread you started in 2013 called "Is card influencing possible in Texas Hold-em?",
(here it is)
where you claim that the way you hold your hole cards affects the luck of the outcome. That is voodoo baloney, however, as some of viewers pointed out, perhaps it affected your posturing and conveyed hand strength.

My new side-bet jackpot is a "sanctioned" way of showing hand strength... I think it's the first and only time this has even been possible in poker. If I make a $10 bet that I have the nuts, while I'm playing my live table hand, that shows strength, and it doesn't depend upon my body posturing, my stare-downs, my 2-minute delays, my playing with chip stacks or by grabbing the corner of my hole cards. Of course, it might be a bluff as well.

Does anyone see the hidden beauty of this?

Does anyone think this is illegal, or violates any gaming codes?

I like your idea very much. This side bet is really PART OF THE GAME.
You maybe bluffing or the jackpot is worth more than the pot. Very interesting.

Quote: andysif

I like your idea very much. This side bet is really PART OF THE GAME.
You maybe bluffing or the jackpot is worth more than the pot. Very interesting.

That is good feedback, I thank you!

I don't know if you followed my full description link, but I came up with some variations that reward the first player to make the bet; my hope is that will entice it to be played.

I'm only concerned that there might be some kind of restrictions on these types of bets. Where are PaiGow Dan and MathEx when I really need 'em? I might need to start a poll to ask the question.

Thanks for your interest, Andysif.

Interesting concept, but I think it needs a lot more polishing before it's workable. Don't say "here are all 12 ways for you to spread my bet," instead give the poker room manager the *best* way. If you can't figure out what that is, you're not ready.

What happens when someone makes the bet pre-flop and everyone else folds to him? Do they win? Does the dealer deal out the board anyway?

I don't know if it's counter to any regs per se, but the bet sounds like the odds change dramatically while at the same time betting into a progressive pot. That means the EV is going to fluctuate wildly. In other words, ripe for AP players. Probably too vulturable to work long-term.

Because it's a casino side bet, does the money made from that go to a different pile then the rake? Does the payouts happen from the chips in the dealer's tray?

if you can find a game where people are betting $10 on nutjack preflop, i will fly there tomorrow

Quote: MathExtremist

Interesting concept, but I think it needs a lot more polishing before it's workable. Don't say "here are all 12 ways for you to spread my bet," instead give the poker room manager the *best* way. If you can't figure out what that is, you're not ready.

12 ways was derived from me offering 4 game variations, and then offering a choice of how many betting phases the player is allowed to make NutJack side-bets in. BRAVO, again, MathEx, you show your genius. Thanks for looking into the idea, and I apologize for my lengthy Asperger's-style description.

In my opinion, the *best* way would be the variation "All-In, First-Nut NutJack", and allowing players to make the NutJack side-bet on the ante, pre-flop, flop and turn, but I NEVER PLAYED IT, I JUST THOUGHT IT UP 2 days ago!!! I wasn't sure if it is legal or not before I spend $$ with my patent attorney. Your saying it IS legal to make a side-bet that also directly impacts the assumed strength of a live hand being dealt, right? Hmmm, I might have to make the call to Jon Shackelford after all of this positive feedback I'm getting here on WoV!

Quote: MathExtremist

What happens when someone makes the bet pre-flop and everyone else folds to him? Do they win? Does the dealer deal out the board anyway?

Great forethought, MathEx... in this case, they obviously win the live game pot, and now, I guess the dealer will have to go ahead and deal out the live-game hand, just to see if he hit his nut hand. And now that I'm thinking about it, players can use this to force the house to reveal what deck held.... they won't have to beg the dealer, they can just buy it now. Maybe that's a bad thing, if other players are betting against you ("you have to pay to see 'em"), but these situations aren't quite the same. Personally, have no problem seeing what I missed out on, it would only take a few extra seconds, and only when the house got paid to do it by way of the side-bet commission..

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't know if it's counter to any regs per se, but the bet sounds like the odds change dramatically while at the same time betting into a progressive pot. That means the EV is going to fluctuate wildly. In other words, ripe for AP players. Probably too vulnerable to work long-term.

Ripe for AP players... if that means "Advanced Players", yes I agree. If that means Advantage Poker players who'd use the bet to bluff, then that is exactly the beauty of the idea.

THANKS for taking the time, MathEx.... I owe you a boatload of golf discs!!

Quote: djatc

Because it's a casino side bet, does the money made from that go to a different pile then the rake? Does the payouts happen from the chips in the dealer's tray?

Please see the write-up. In non-electronic implementations, a plastic jackpot accumulation box can sit on the table next to the dealer (just like many of today's jackpot antes are collected) TOTALLY SEPARATE from the live game.

In front of the box is an "enqueuing region" for in-progress NutJack side-bets. This is a set of 9 or 18 spots, each marks a player seat position, and the dealer positions NutJack bets on these spots as he accepts them. The region thus indicates who's is making the bet as the hand progresses.

The region is cleared at the end of each hand: If the player makes the NutJack side-bet, and doesn't get a nut-hand, the bet goes into the jackpot accumulation box. If he wins, the jackpot money comes out of the box.

This has nothing to to with the table money, other than the money to pay for NutJack side-bets comes from player's live game stacks, but hey, that's already allowed to pay for drinks at the table and to pay for dealer's tips.

Thanks for your interest.

Read most of the idea via your link and got through a lot of it before clicking back; I like the soul of this but (and forgive me if I missed where it answers this in your link) what's the initial motivation to wager on NutJack when the prior pool has been won and there is $0 now available to win? From your page:

"The next hand immediately begins with the jackpot value of zero."

This is the challenge faced on progressives if no seed money were used; eager to know how this might be addressed.


Also, second the point on whether or not the casino would be willing to run the cards if all players fold just to see if the bettor on NutJack wins. That's a waste of time to the property, even when getting a piece of the action.


Still like where this is coming from and how it can influence the game.

Best,

Spinner

Quote: tongni

if you can find a game where people are betting $10 on nutjack preflop, i will fly there tomorrow

The ante bet, by itself, isn't smart, if that's what you're implying, you are right. The bet is only helpful to the live game when its allowed in the later betting phases, after players know what they're dealing with.

In fact, I've considered not even allowing it to be made at ante... pre-flop, flop and turn seem like good candidates, and the "All-In, First-Nut NutJack" variation seems like it'd be the most fun.

COOL, thanks for you positive feedback... THIS GAME HAS NEVER BEEN PLAYED BEFORE, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY IT OUT WITH SOME FRIENDS AND SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT.

Thanks for your interest.

Quote: Spinner14

Read most of the idea via your link and got through a lot of it before clicking back; I like the soul of this but (and forgive me if I missed where it answers this in your link) what's the initial motivation to wager on NutJack when the prior pool has been won and there is $0 now available to win? From your page:

"The next hand immediately begins with the jackpot value of zero."

This is the challenge faced on progressives if no seed money were used; eager to know how this might be addressed.

Good question, Spinner!

If the bet is allowed in the later phases, it can be used to indicate hand-strength (or for "sanctioned bluffing"), and THAT is the main reason that I foresee it being used... in these cases, the jackpot is less likely to accumulate, but the bet will be made when appropriate; it's only a matter of time, as nut hands are not all that rare... I believe it would get played every 6th hand or so, on a full table.

My variation "First-Nut" also encourages the bet to be made because the first player to make it gets paid more.

The jackpot accumulation COULD be taken off of the rake of the live-game pot; advanced players who desire this game should be willing to pay for it in this way... we already pay for jackpots like this anyway, like it or not. Perhaps the house SHOULD setup tables like this... wherein you are playing for the jackpots that you want to play for, and this particular one would be for advanced players who want to use it to influence the live game.

Quote: Spinner14

Also, second the point on whether or not the casino would be willing to run the cards if all players fold just to see if the bettor on NutJack wins. That's a waste of time to the property, even when getting a piece of the action.

Please see my response to MathEx.. it would only take a few seconds, it is being paid for via the NutJack side-bet commission, and now it becomes a way for players to pay to see what the deck would have dealt.

Quote: Spinner14

Still like where this is coming from and how it can influence the game.

More positive feedback!! Wow, for WoV, this is VERY encouraging!!

Thanks for your interest.

Quote: discflicker

Ripe for AP players... if that means "Advanced Players", yes I agree. If that means Advantage Poker players who'd use the bet to bluff, then that is exactly the beauty of the idea.

THANKS for taking the time, MathEx.... I owe you a boatload of golf discs!!

No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.

And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...

Edit: to address Spinner14's comment on game speed if you have to deal out the board all the time, I agree that it would slow the game down but I don't think that's a huge knock against it like it would be in a house-banked game. Hourly rake in a poker game is pretty low compared to table games so I'd expect any drop in rake volume would be more than compensated for by the win from this side bet.

Quote: MathExtremist

No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.

That's why I have all of these variations in the way its played. I re-did the document an added a "recommendations" section, here it is-

For Casinos, I have three:

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, using a $1 rake from every pot > $20 to seed the jackpot, a 10% commission on all jackpots kept by the house, allowing the bet to be made upon ante and pre-flop.

This variation would be better for casinos that can pool money from multiple tables into the NutJack side-bet jackpot accumulation. These jackpots would have moderate accumulation, and the NutJack side-bet would still have a moderate effect upon the live-game strategy.

Or

“Free NutJack”, NO set bet, using a $1 rake from every pot > $20 to seed the jackpot. If you have the exclusive nut hand, you win the jackpot, just like “Royal flush suite of the day”.

This variation would also be better for casinos that can pool money from multiple tables into the NutJack side-bet jackpot accumulation. These jackpots would accumulate the most, but have very little effect upon the live-game strategy.

Or

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, using a $1 commission paid up-front, allowing the bet to be made upon pre-flop and flop.

This variation would be better for casinos that can’t pool money into jackpots from multiple tables. These jackpots would have little accumulation, however, the NutJack side-bet will be very effective in the live-game strategy.

For a home game:

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $10 set bet, no commission, allowing the bet to be made upon pre-flop, flop, and turn.

This variation would have a crazy impact on the live-game strategy.

Quote: MathExtremist

And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...

OK, where do you live, I still have a thousand or so golf discs, and I just got 1200 brand-new Ultimate discs in for a new project I'm into, which is really frickin cool if i don't mind saying so...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/23037-175-grams/#post479171

http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Pointer/www/projects/IndiaDiscSports/Project175_Phase3.htm

Thanks again

Quote: MathExtremist

No, what I mean is that advantage players would be making the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it, regardless of anything else. That would have the impact of lowering the average pool size for everyone else. In other words, it sounds strongly vulturable, like Ultimate X or accumulator slots. Vulturable games are generally a bad idea so you'll really need to nail the math in order to make this a viable long-term proposition. If not, it might have short-term success but fade away quickly, just like accumulator slots did.

And I don't need a boatload, but I wouldn't turn down a few discs and a basket for my backyard...

Edit: to address Spinner14's comment on game speed if you have to deal out the board all the time, I agree that it would slow the game down but I don't think that's a huge knock against it like it would be in a house-banked game. Hourly rake in a poker game is pretty low compared to table games so I'd expect any drop in rake volume would be more than compensated for by the win from this side bet.

No, they don't have to "make the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it", they can bet AFTER they had the nut, therefore no odds are involved.

Besides, this side bet is really a poker thing. it's all about the bluff. so i don't think you can treat it like other side bet where you just simply calculate the odd.

So I'm playing in a No Limit Holdem game. I either have the nut or want someone to think I have the nut. What am I going to do. Raise to $150 or place a Nut Jack bet? Seems pretty obvious the side bet won't work for no limit or hight limit games.

If it's a side bet placed pre-hand, I could see it working in low limit games. Post deal, the action and idea of the side bet already exists. It's called a raise.

You need to go back to the basics. Poker Managers don't really want to see 6 options of what could work. They (we) want to see one option that does work. It's a pretty decent idea as a pre-deal side bet. Take that and run with it.


ZCore13

Quote: andysif

No, they don't have to "make the bet whenever the odds of hitting the nuts with their hand based on the side pot warranted it", they can bet AFTER they had the nut, therefore no odds are involved.

Besides, this side bet is really a poker thing. it's all about the bluff. so i don't think you can treat it like other side bet where you just simply calculate the odd.

He likes it! I'm getting only positive feedback; this is a first for WoV.

Anyone wanna bankroll this? I can have my lawyer draw up a patent on it in no time at all.

Quote: Zcore13

So I'm playing in a No Limit Holdem game. I either have the nut or want someone to think I have the nut. What am I going to do. Raise to $150 or place a Nut Jack bet? Seems pretty obvious the side bet won't work for no limit or hight limit games.

If it's a side bet placed pre-hand, I could see it working in low limit games. Post deal, the action and idea of the side bet already exists. It's called a raise.

You need to go back to the basics. Poker Managers don't really want to see 6 options of what could work. They (we) want to see one option that does work. It's a pretty decent idea as a pre-deal side bet. Take that and run with it.


ZCore13

if $10 isn't much in high limits, make it 50, or 100. "No limit" is not exactly no limit. There are buy-in limit for the table. Make the bet 1/10, or 1/20 of max buy-in.
Then we are talking about $50 bet for $300 jackpot on a $150 game pot. that would be quite interesting.

Not sure what to make of this. I like the idea, but i can see quite a few problems with it.

You're mainly focusing on how it can be used as a bluffing tool, but i think you're forgetting the flip side to this. If a player raises big and actually does have the nuts, so therefore wants a call, unless the jackpot is a lot bigger than the the pot they're playing, i don't think they'll be wanting to give their hand strength away by making this bet. I guess it could be made as a 'reverse' bluff, but i'm not sure players would like that.

Also, kind of related to ME's point about A.P or vulturing. I don't know anything about that aspect of it, but if the jackpot was big enough, i could definitely envisage a scenario where a table of regs agree to flat call every hand pre-flop and check it down to the river to win the jackpot. This would impact the rake, and make for a very boring game.

Best of luck with it anyway.

Quote: ShineyShine

Not sure what to make of this. I like the idea, but i can see quite a few problems with it.

You're mainly focusing on how it can be used as a bluffing tool, but i think you're forgetting the flip side to this. If a player raises big and actually does have the nuts, so therefore wants a call, unless the jackpot is a lot bigger than the the pot they're playing, i don't think they'll be wanting to give their hand strength away by making this bet. I guess it could be made as a 'reverse' bluff, but i'm not sure players would like that.

Also, kind of related to ME's point about A.P or vulturing. I don't know anything about that aspect of it, but if the jackpot was big enough, i could definitely envisage a scenario where a table of regs agree to flat call every hand pre-flop and check it down to the river to win the jackpot. This would impact the rake, and make for a very boring game.

Best of luck with it anyway.

whether to check, raise, bluff or bet the side bet is not the concern of the designer. it is the concern of the player. the designer makes the tool, player makes up his strategy.

Quote: andysif

whether to check, raise, bluff or bet the side bet is not the concern of the designer. it is the concern of the player. the designer makes the tool, player makes up his strategy.

I'm not saying it couldn't work, just brainstorming any problems players may have with it. I actually think some players would play it a lot, but i do think it would alienate others, depending on the size of the jackpot relative to the actual pot the're playing.

I think a lot would depend on the size of the jackpot as regards to the players strategy. Not sure how much this would impact the success of this side bet.

Thanks for your time and interest. I value your opinions and comments.

Quote: Zcore13

So I'm playing in a No Limit Holdem game. I either have the nut or want someone to think I have the nut. What am I going to do. Raise to $150 or place a Nut Jack bet? Seems pretty obvious the side bet won't work for no limit or high limit games.

If it's a side bet placed pre-hand, I could see it working in low limit games. Post deal, the action and idea of the side bet already exists. It's called a raise.

You need to go back to the basics. Poker Managers don't really want to see 6 options of what could work. They (we) want to see one option that does work. It's a pretty decent idea as a pre-deal side bet. Take that and run with it.
ZCore13

I DEFINITELY see your point about the high-limit games and the raise already being the weapon of choice. The fixed bet size could be scaled up according to the buy-in limits, but I agree, it would be foolish in very high-stakes games.

In Texas Hold-em, there are the ante, pre-flop, flop, turn, and river betting phases. When you say "Pre-deal" do you mean ante or do you mean pre-flop? I think you meant ante, just a blind shot in the dark, and the problem with this approach is, who wants to make the first bets when the jackpot is empty? How does the jackpot get seeded without decent payback prospect?

Why not allow this bet to be made pre-flop after the just hole cards are seen? At that point in the game, anyone can have non-exclusive nut hands, but some are far more likely than others (pocket pairs and connectors spaced no further than 5 apart are more likely to result in quads or straight-flushes, which are likely nut hands). Only suited cards in the 10 - A range are possible Royal Flush (exclusive nutters) candidates. Its a very small advantage, but again, I like the idea of acting upon a jackpot after you have information, and that is how I envisioned the jackpot being seeded... by players believing they are likely to win it, and then by allowing it to be used for bluffing/showing hand strength to add to it.

I still think it would be useful in limit games, at least allowing the bet on ante, pre-flop AND FLOP... doing so will seed the jackpot from nothing, and it can be used as a "sanctioned way" for bluffing/showing hand strength as well. In this case I believe the ratio of jackpot to table pot can be kept in a reasonable balance. And limit hold-em is WAY too boring anyways... it NEEDS NutJack side-bets, in my opinion.

As far as the 6 ways of presenting it, MathEx also has a concern as well. I have a "single version" offering (below). However, the way I have described the wager is by simple definitions and operational procedures, and allowing them to be used within a range of "Operational Parameters". My goal is to allow the casinos to use it any way they see fit. I do not believe its all that complicated.

As a casino manager who owned the product, you can try it out on a table as a "Pre-Deal side-bet"... the procedures for the wager would become familiar to everyone there (see ** below), and then when everyone feels comfortable with it, you could try allowing the bet to be made later on in the hand, and see what happens, one phase at a time. You could try it out in other games like 5-card stud and on low-buy-in, no-limit hold-em games as well.

**As an incentive to make the wager blindly, only in the ante phase, and when the Jackpot accumulation is zero, there's a lot of obscure things that could be done, like:
Seeding it from a rake.
Seeding it from a rake until the jackpot has a "cut-off threshold", like $100 in it, and then taking no more rakes.
Allowing the bet to be made in the later phases until the jackpot has a cut-off when betting is only allowed at ante or maybe pre-flop time.
HOWEVER, the introductory game should be very simple, and all of these methods of seeding the jackpot are overly complex. If you can think of another way, please let me know.

And so, again, I recommend that the bet BE ALLOWED at least in pre-flop, and see how the public reacts to it. A low-stakes limit hold-em game might be just the thing for introducing NutJack side-bets into the world of poker.

Zcore13, how about this for ONE INTRODUCTORY GAME: Under Texas hold-em, limit, 1-2 game ante, $100 - $200 buy-in maximum. $5 NutJack bets are allowed for the ante, $10 for pre-flop, and $20 at the flop. If a player waits for the flop, he might very well already have an exclusive nutter, and it might be worthwhile to make the bet, knowing he cant lose it. Or it might be a bluff. The Ante and pre-flop bets would become more and more reasonable as more money accumulates into the jackpot. As an extra incentive to make NutJack side-bets (and seed the jackpot), I would also use the "First-Nut" rule, where the first player to make the bet in a given hand wins more, as described in the write-up.

Thanks again for you time and interest, Zcore13.

So, as I was watching one of the games in my casino the other day, I said to myself, I think I'll pretend players are playing Nutjack. I'

I then watched for the next hour while not one nut hand was achieved. The problem I found is getting the nut doesn't happen all that often. For example:

If there are 3 of the same suit on the board, the player has to have A K of that suit for the nut. An Ace high flush with anything else doesn't qualify.

If the board pairs, a full house gets you nothing. The nut is quads with an Ace Kicker (or King if the quads are Aces).

If the board has A 5 2 of Diamonds, KQ gets you nothing. The nut is 3 4 of Diamonds for a straight flush.

I think people will be turned off very quickly when nobody gets nut hands during an hour or two of play. Bad Beat jackpots used to be the big thing and draw players. Now most casinos have ended or severely reduced the funding on Bad Beat Jackpots in favor of hourly promotions.

I really thought it had a shot at first. Now after watching for it first hand, I don't think so.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

So, as I was watching one of the games in my casino the other day, I said to myself, I think I'll pretend players are playing Nutjack. I'

I then watched for the next hour while not one nut hand was achieved. The problem I found is getting the nut doesn't happen all that often. For example:

If there are 3 of the same suit on the board, the player has to have A K of that suit for the nut. An Ace high flush with anything else doesn't qualify.

If the board pairs, a full house gets you nothing. The nut is quads with an Ace Kicker (or King if the quads are Aces).

If the board has A 5 2 of Diamonds, KQ gets you nothing. The nut is 3 4 of Diamonds for a straight flush.

I think people will be turned off very quickly when nobody gets nut hands during an hour or two of play. Bad Beat jackpots used to be the big thing and draw players. Now most casinos have ended or severely reduced the funding on Bad Beat Jackpots in favor of hourly promotions.

I really thought it had a shot at first. Now after watching for it first hand, I don't think so.


ZCore13

Are you sure you understand the meaning of "nuts"? In your 3 examples, you have them 2 wrong.

If there are 3 of the same suit on the board, the player has to have A K of that suit for the nut. An Ace high flush with anything else doesn't qualify.
- no, if you have the A + another card of the suit, you have the nuts. No need for AK,
When you hold A + another card, nobody can beat you (assume no pair on the board), therefore you already have the nuts.

If the board pairs, a full house gets you nothing. The nut is quads with an Ace Kicker (or King if the quads are Aces).
- no need for Ace Kicker. Again, no body can beat you if you hold the pair that match the board's pair.

Quote: discflicker

I came up with a side-bet...

Please forgive me for not RTFM and if I have missed an obvious description, but I was trying to get an idea of the bet by quickly reading your initial link, sadly after two minutes I gave in.

When reviewing new games at shows I deliberately ask the demonstrator NOT to describe the game but see whether the handouts give a quick and accurate description; occasionally something has been omitted or isn't as clear as they thought. Also I'm testing the ten-second rule but with the in-depth knowledge of other games.

This is meant not as criticism, but within the first few seconds I had not got any clue what your idea is. This is one of the important things when designing a game/side-bet - also a dealer should be able to describe the concepts to passing players, and once it's got their interest a pamphlet gives the intricate details.

As to your page, poker players will know what a "Nut Hand" is, so it is not important to define it within the first part. I kept reading things like "simple for players to understand" - but never got the overview of exactly what the bet was - yes it concerned "Nut-Hands", had a "Jackpot" feature, was a $10 bet - so I could imagine what it might be.

When you've got past the, what is it about, you can add towards the end some terminology, aspects of the game such as house edge, countability/AP implications, dealer procedures, security implications etc.

Also you need to finalise your suggestions for the best way to have the bet - as an example a Blackjack based side-bet/game designer might say, we recommend using 6 decks and these payouts, if you hit soft 17 or use 4 decks then some changes would be xxx; there are few countability issues but avoid 4 deck 83% penetration.

Quote: andysif

Are you sure you understand the meaning of "nuts"? In your 3 examples, you have them 2 wrong.

If there are 3 of the same suit on the board, the player has to have A K of that suit for the nut. An Ace high flush with anything else doesn't qualify.
- no, if you have the A + another card of the suit, you have the nuts. No need for AK,
When you hold A + another card, nobody can beat you (assume no pair on the board), therefore you already have the nuts.

If the board pairs, a full house gets you nothing. The nut is quads with an Ace Kicker (or King if the quads are Aces).
- no need for Ace Kicker. Again, no body can beat you if you hold the pair that match the board's pair.

You are correct on the board pairing and flush. I didnt think it all the way through. No need for an Ace kicker on quads because nobody else could have quads if you do.

Still the nut with the board paired is quads. Very rare.
The nut with 3 suited cards such as A 2 5(or any other 3 within 5 cards of eachother) is the straight flush. Very rare.

I'll watch again next week.


ZCore13

And now that I think about it even more, if the board is paired and someone folded one of those cards pre-flop, quads are no longer the nut hand, but you might not know about it.

It's going to be too confusing.


ZCore13

Folded cards don't matter. Having the nuts is all about having something unbeatable without knowing anyone else's hand.


The only time the actual nuts can differ from absolute nuts is when you yourself are holding a blocking card.

For example, a board of K K 7 3 2 rainbow, the absolute nuts is K K, but if you're holding K 7, that becomes the actual nuts because quads are impossible and nobody can have a better full house. There is a slim chance that someone else can also have K 7 for a nut chop.



On a related note, here's a board that can have three different hands as the nuts. K Q J suited with two small cards that are not a pair. If a player holds A 10, 10 9 or A 9, of that same suit, it's the nuts: Royal, Straight Flush or Nut Flush with a blocker to the SF.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Folded cards don't matter. Having the nuts is all about having something unbeatable without knowing anyone else's hand.


The only time the actual nuts can differ from absolute nuts is when you yourself are holding a blocking card.

For example, a board of K K 7 3 2 rainbow, the absolute nuts is K K, but if you're holding K 7, that becomes the actual nuts because quads are impossible and nobody can have a better full house. There is a slim chance that someone else can also have K 7 for a nut chop.



On a related note, here's a board that can have three different hands as the nuts. K Q J suited with two small cards that are not a pair. If a player holds A 10, 10 9 or A 9, of that same suit, it's the nuts: Royal, Straight Flush or Nut Flush with a blocker to the SF.

Imagine the confusion at the table though if the board is 5 5 K Q 7. At the showdown, someone shows pocket Kings. Damn, not the nuts. Someone could have had quads. Then someone either shows or says the folded a 5.

Too much grey area. Remember, people are drinking, not everyone plays all the time, different Supervisors on different shifts. Every rule/promotion has to be put on paper and have no room for questioning.


ZCore13

KK would be the second nuts.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

KK would be the second nuts.

Agreed. But what if someone at the showdown shows they have a 5. Now all of a sudden the table is arguing that quads was no longer the best possible hand, as nobody could have gotten quads with a 5 in someone's hand.


ZCore13

Poker players know that the nuts is all about having an unbeatable hand, without knowing what anyone else holds or folded.

The only exception would be if there was a prematurely exposed card before the showdown. But that would have to be written in, or specifically excluded, from this side bet's rules.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Poker players know that the nuts is all about having an unbeatable hand, without knowing what anyone else holds or folded.

The only exception would be if there was a prematurely exposed card before the showdown. But that would have to be written in, or specifically excluded, from this side bet's rules.

Well, this proposal certainly has everyone thinking about all the possibilities... kind of like thinking up good strategies for the various outcomes of a craps roll.

THANK YOU, DJTeddyBear for your comments and your interest; I never considered the possibility of card exposure, and I will write this into the rules right now!!

Thanks to everyone on this thread for your valuable comments!

Marty, 28-Aug-2015

Quote: charliepatrick

Please forgive me for not RTFM and if I have missed an obvious description, but I was trying to get an idea of the bet by quickly reading your initial link, sadly after two minutes I gave in.

My apologies, I am an IDIOT when it comes to expressing myself, as most of the WoV posters who've struggled though my documentation over the years already know. I just can't resist embellishing my work with stupid tangents, CAPS, BOLD, and ignorant "humor" like that gal going over Niagara falls. When I "try harder", I wind up with even more "talk soup".

Quote:

When reviewing new games at shows I deliberately ask the demonstrator NOT to describe the game but see whether the handouts give a quick and accurate description; occasionally something has been omitted or isn't as clear as they thought. Also I'm testing the ten-second rule but with the in-depth knowledge of other games.

This is meant not as criticism, but within the first few seconds I had not got any clue what your idea is. This is one of the important things when designing a game/side-bet - also a dealer should be able to describe the concepts to passing players, and once it's got their interest a pamphlet gives the intricate details.

As to your page, poker players will know what a "Nut Hand" is, so it is not important to define it within the first part.

I'm not so sure about that, even some of our experts here on WoV are having disagreements about what it means.

I think that Zcore13 maybe thought that nutters require both of your hole cards to be played. But DJTeddyBear does understand it, and he even pointed out when it would become ambiguous... when a card gets exposed, and THANKS AGAIN for catching that, DJ!

Quote:

I kept reading things like "simple for players to understand" - but never got the overview of exactly what the bet was - yes it concerned "Nut-Hands", had a "Jackpot" feature, was a $10 bet - so I could imagine what it might be.

When you've got past the, what is it about, you can add towards the end some terminology, aspects of the game such as house edge, countability/AP implications, dealer procedures, security implications etc.

Also you need to finalise your suggestions for the best way to have the bet - as an example a Blackjack based side-bet/game designer might say, we recommend using 6 decks and these payouts, if you hit soft 17 or use 4 decks then some changes would be xxx; there are few countability issues but avoid 4 deck 83% penetration.

Thanks for your interest, charleypatrick, I will take your suggestions and try coming up with a "Quick flyer description". I will also add the "suggested game" that I made for Zcore13. Thanks!!

Quote: Zcore13

Agreed. But what if someone at the showdown shows they have a 5. Now all of a sudden the table is arguing that quads was no longer the best possible hand, as nobody could have gotten quads with a 5 in someone's hand.


ZCore13

DJTeddyBear has a solid definition of nut hands, and I agree. The only issue is if a card is accidentally exposed, and so I have updated my document and added the following section:

Special situation… handling accidental card exposures:

As pointed out by DJTeadyBear on the WoV forum, if a card(s) is (are) accidentally exposed over the course of a hand, this can affect whether a hand is considered “the nuts” or not. In these special situations:

1) Once a card is accidentally exposed, players are no longer allowed to make NutJack side-bets.

2) If any NutJack side-bets have already made before accidental exposure, then the cards that become exposed are not allowed to be considered for determination of the hand’s status as an actual nut hand.

In other words, we act like it never happened.

(Thanks again DJTeddyBear)


I have also added the following quick description at the start of the document, per suggestions from charleypatrick

Quick description:

In a live game of no-limit Texas-hold-em poker, players can make a side-bet that the hand they’re playing is “unbeatable”… “the nuts”. They can make the side-bet either at ante for $5, or after they see their hole cards at pre-flop for $10, or after they see the flop for $25. If they don’t have “the nuts” at the showdown, the money is accumulated into the “NutJack Jackpot” (i.e., a plastic box on the table). If they do have “the nuts”, they win the jackpot.

NutJack side-bet wagers are unique for two reasons:

1) Players holding nut hands can totally control the jackpot… they can wait until they see the flop (when they already know they have an unbeatable hand) and then bet on it to win an accumulated jackpot.

2) At the pre-flop or the flop (or even later, in some versions of NutJack), the act of making the side-bet may be used as “a sanctioned way” of showing hand strength, or as a bluff. Thus, NutJack side-bets can affect the action of the live game itself.

(thanks again, charleypatrick)


Finally, as suggested by MathExtreamist, Zcoore13, AND charleypatrick, I added a prioritized list of of suggested variations and here are #1 and #2:

1) “WoV NutJack for limit Texas Hold-em”

“First-Nut NutJack”, $5 bet at ante, $10 at pre-flop, all bets using a $1 commission, paid up-front, or a 10% commission upon jackpot payout.

This variation would be better for casinos that can’t pool money into jackpots from multiple tables. These jackpots would have little accumulation, however, the NutJack side-bet will be effective in the live-game strategy.

2) “WoV NutJack for no-limit Texas Hold-em”

“All-In, First-Nut NutJack”, $5 bet at ante, $10 at pre-flop, $25 at the flop, all bets using a $1 commission, paid up-front, or a 10% commission upon jackpot payout.

This variation would also be better for casinos that can’t pool money into jackpots from multiple tables. These jackpots would have little accumulation, however, the NutJack side-bet will be MOST effective in the live-game strategy.


Thank you everyone for your very positive suggestions and interest.

Quote: discflicker

...Quick description:...that the hand they’re playing is “unbeatable”… “the nuts”...

Technically "they're playing" is wrong since they may have the nuts at that point (e.g. A-high flush) but lose it due to later cards. I think you mean at showdown or equivalent.

Also I think there's a major issue with "Nuts" as opposed to being "Unbeatable" - see argument below.


As an aside it might be helpful if you were creating a pamphlet to explain the highest hands for various five-card boards.

(i) Three or more suited cards that are connected - highest possible straight flush.
(ii) Pairs, Trips or Quads - if the highest rank is a Pair or Trips, then the highest ranked Quads; otherwise highest Quads with an Ace kicker (or AAAAK).
(iii) Three of more suited cards, no straight flush possible, no Pairs on board - flush including the highest suited card(s) not on board.
(iv) Three or more connected cards (no possible flush), highest straight possible.
(v) None of above - Trips of the highest card (i.e. hole cards are a pair matching highest ranked card on board).


The "nut-hand" is the highest possible five-card poker hand using the five cards from the board with any two other cards from a fresh deck. For instance if the board had 10s 9s 8s 5c 3d, the best hand possible could be if you had Qs Js. However if you actually had Js 7s, while your hand is unbeatable, it may be argued you do not have the "nut" hole cards.

More likely to be a problem though is when there is a flush (under (iii)). Do you have the "nuts" with just the suited Ace (and another if needed) or do you actually need the highest two cards? This one could definitely cause a problem since most poker players will automatically consider their hands as "nuts" with the Ace-flush.


I actually think it's better to use the term unbeatable with the possible provisos (i) exceeds the board (ii) the hand could be equalled, but not beat, by another player (holding any other two-card combinations remaining from a fresh deck). I should probably add, that where cards are accidentally exposed, either by other players or the dealer, this shall not affect the determination of the bet (otherwise it's in everyone's interest to throw their cards in face up): so in the instance shown if the board had Trip 5s (and no pair), the Nut requirement is still to have a 5 even if it is known that a 5 has been thrown in.

Quote: charliepatrick

Technically "they're playing" is wrong since they may have the nuts at that point (e.g. A-high flush) but lose it due to later cards. I think you mean at showdown or equivalent

I clarify that in the following sentences in my document.

Quote: charliepatrick

As an aside it might be helpful if you were creating a pamphlet to explain the highest hands for various five-card boards.

Upon showdown there is no ambiguity. What does matter is this:

At Ante, the player has a 0.98% chance of hitting an unbeatable hand... it's a total craps shot.

After the pre-flop, players have up to a 4.35% chance of hitting an unbeatable hand... see this table, it turns out, suited A - 10 has the best chance, even better than A - A (if I'm reading it correctly). Knowledge of his hand's expected probability of hitting the nuts is why the bet cost 2x more at pre-flop than at ante.

But certainly, at ante and pre-flop, nothing is certain. However, once the flop is seen, THEN if players have both suited hole cards in the 10 - A range, then can KNOW they have the winner (if they're luck enough to flop the Royal flush, that is, I've seen that once in my lifetime), or at least the potential for it (if the board has at least one of the other 10 - A range cards of his suite). If the board doesn't have at least one card in the range of 10 - A, then, hitting the Royal is impossible.

IN ANY CASE, players are able to accurately determine the likelihood of hitting a nut hand by waiting until they see at the flop. For example, if anyone flops a straight, there's a good chance it will be the nuts at showdown. If they flop a flush, it's even better, etc. Again, knowledge of a hand's expected probability of hitting the nuts is why the NutJack side-bet cost (2 1/2) x more at flop than at pre-flop.

The point is: the flop can allow the player to fully control the pot, so if a player waits for the flop to make the bet, then, yes, he might have a sure nut hand, but other players might have already made the FIRST NutJack bet, so he can't claim "FIRST PLAYER" status if he waits...recall, the FIRST player to make a NutJack side-bet wins more in a showdown that results in a shared - win, and now I need to make a slight, but important change to the rules...

RUN-OUT OPTION: If everyone folds to a player that has already made a NutJack bet, NOW HE IS GIVEN THE OPTION OF RUNNING OUT THE HAND, OR NOT, IF HE HAS THE ABSOLUTE NUT (depending upon the layout, AT THE TIME, which might be flop, or turn), THEN HE SHOULD CHOOSE THIS OPTION BECAUSE HE WINS THE JACKPOT PLUS THE ENQUEUING REGION BETS (THE IN-PROCESS NUTJACK SIDE-BETS). IF HE CHOOSES TO NOT RUN OUT THE HAND, NOW, HE WINS THE ENQUEUING REGION. THIS OPTION MAKES IT WAY BETTER NOW, BECAUSE PLAYERS CAN REALLY BLUFF WITH IT, AND THE BETS ARE NOW MORE ENCOURAGED, BECAUSE NOW, NUT HAND OR NOT, THE PLAYER HAS A NEW POTENTIAL WAY TO WIN AND MAY NOT HAVE TO EVEN SHOW HIS HAND!

The down side is: If he chooses to run out the hand while he's sitting non a PROBABLE NUT (i.e., he has a straight on the turn), then choosing to run out the hand might make his hand no longer a nut hand; in this case, he does NOT win the jackpot OR the enqueuing region bets!! So, in effect, he can lose what he already had locked up (the enqueuing region money) if he makes the choice to run out the deck, and the board nullifies his nut hand. In this case, the money in the enqueuing region goes into the Jackpot accumulation.

That makes it even better!!! It encourages the bet to be made and it accumulates the Jackpot even more than if this option wasn't available, and it adds excitement and risk to the game.

I will now include this "Run-out option" in all of the recommended variations, except for the "Free--NutJack, because that game doesn't allow players to make the bet in the first place, its always in play like "Royal Flush of the day".

If the casino allows the bet to be made on the turn, THEN these other combinations that you list start to become considerations:

Quote: charliepatrick

(i) Three or more suited cards that are connected - highest possible straight flush.
(ii) Pairs, Trips or Quads - if the highest rank is a Pair or Trips, then the highest ranked Quads; otherwise highest Quads with an Ace kicker (or AAAAK).
(iii) Three of more suited cards, no straight flush possible, no Pairs on board - flush including the highest suited card(s) not on board.
(iv) Three or more connected cards (no possible flush), highest straight possible.
(v) None of above - Trips of the highest card (i.e. hole cards are a pair matching highest ranked card on board).

The NutJack bet is really simple, but it adds a lot of flexibility and excitement into the game, especially limit hold-em; The NutJack side-bet alone makes it play more like no-limit hold-em!

Quote: charliepatrick

The "nut-hand" is the highest possible five-card poker hand using the five cards from the board with any two other cards from a fresh deck. For instance if the board had 10s 9s 8s 5c 3d, the best hand possible could be if you had Qs Js. However if you actually had Js 7s, while your hand is unbeatable, it may be argued you do not have the "nut" hole cards.

More likely to be a problem though is when there is a flush (under (iii)). Do you have the "nuts" with just the suited Ace (and another if needed) or do you actually need the highest two cards? This one could definitely cause a problem since most poker players will automatically consider their hands as "nuts" with the Ace-flush.

As stated above, there is no ambiguity in determining if a hand is unbeatable at the showdown.

Quote: charliepatrick

I actually think it's better to use the term unbeatable with the possible provisos (i) exceeds the board (ii) the hand could be equaled, but not beat, by another player (holding any other two-card combinations remaining from a fresh deck).

The only definition that needs to be made is "Exclusive-Nut Hand" and "Shared-Nut-Hand", this depends on the outcome at showdown, and it is defined in my document; exclusive means only ONE hand is the nuts, shared means that more than one player share it, i.e., when 4 players each have an ace among their hole cards and the board has quads. In "First-Nut NutJack", the jackpot is divvied among the winners, but the player with "FIRST-PLAYER" status wins the enqueuing region money, as explained in my document. Again, "FIRST-NUT NutJack" encourages players to make the bet for this reason, and that accumulates the jackpot more. Without this, I doubt players would make NutJack side-bets if the jackpot was empty.. it SEEDS it (hopefully).

Quote: charliepatrick

I should probably add, that where cards are accidentally exposed, either by other players or the dealer, this shall not affect the determination of the bet (otherwise it's in everyone's interest to throw their cards in face up): so in the instance shown if the board had Trip 5s (and no pair), the Nut requirement is still to have a 5 even if it is known that a 5 has been thrown in.

I have already addressed this new issue, see my newly added "Special case" rule, above... I agree with you, however if a card is accidental exposed then I'm not allowing any more NutJack bets to be placed in that hand, because once seen, a player can use the information to help determine if hand he holds is unbeatable.

Now, if a player makes a NutJack bet, we don't need to worry about him exposing cards on-purpose in order to lock other players out of "FIRST-PLAYER" status, because he'll have folded his hand in the act of exposure, at least in classical rules of hand action... if casinos allow players to show their hole cards, in play, while NutJack bets are still allowed to be made, I think this is a conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed, but who knows, maybe THAT can be a part of the NutJack side-bet strategy as well!


Thanks again for all of your interest and for your positive recommendations. I really appreciate it.

Marty, 29-Aug-2015

Wow. A LOT of typing since my last visit here.



First, as has been said several times, "Nuts" = "Unbeatable". And it might be different based upon perspective.

For example, with a board of 10s 9s 8s 5d 2h, there are two nuts hands: Qs Js or Js 7s. The average observer would only think of the first one. 7s 6s is a straight flush, but beatable by Qs Js. Similarly, if you're holding Qs 7s, or Js 6s, there is NO nut hand possible (a secondary payout to the NutJack might be for a Nut Blocker). Some people, holding As Xs will claim to have the "Nuts", but that is only upon showdown, and seeing the other cards. When considering only their own hand and board, they don't have it.

People will often say they have the "Nut Flush" meaning the Ace high flush. But they'll say it even if there is a straight flush possibility, or a paired board. Or even with a three of a kind on the board.

Although less common, people will sometimes say they have the "Nut Straight", and similarly, say it even if the board has a pair, trips, or three to a flush. Hell, even if there's four to a flush AND a pair!



Although I brought it up, I must advise that the rules dictate that prematurely exposed cards are ignored. To do otherwise would require a new set of rules, and procedures. For example, if you include cards exposed during a deal (or a boxed burn card), you'd then need some mechanism to track that card. Or keep it exposed for the duration of the hand.

If you include ANY type of exposed cards, then you're inviting players to 'accidentally' fold face up if they have a buddy with a nut hand once those cards are excluded. Yeah, rare, but....

A few months back, I was involved in a hand where the Kh was exposed and replaced during the hand. I had Jh 6h in the big blind. No raise, the flop was Ah Qh x. At that moment I knew I was drawing to the 'nut flush'. But by the time the heart hit on the river with no paired board, I forgot that the Kh was dead, and proceeded cautiously, despite having the nuts. If there was something to remind me that the Kh was dead, I probably would have bet a little stronger.



Last piece of advice: As shown by the differing opinions in this thread, identifying nut hands is tricky. In the pub poker league where I deal, a few months back we had a promotion where anyone with the nuts got a $1 scratch off lottery ticket. While we had several people shove pre-flop with AA, and WERE given the ticket when nobody called, there were several discussions on the showdown whether or not a hand was the nuts. That's the kinds of issues this bet is going to generate.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Wow. A LOT of typing since my last visit here.
If you include ANY type of exposed cards, then you're inviting players to 'accidentally' fold face up if they have a buddy with a nut hand once those cards are excluded. Yeah, rare, but....

I wasn't going to track them, and I agree they should have no bearing on determination of Nuttage. But I was going to not allow the bet once a card is exposed, because I thought it would've helped the player better determine his chances. I guess its really the same issue for the live game. In the live game they don't stop betting if a card gets exposed, so maybe my idea of not allowing NutJack side bets after a card is exposed is a bad idea. I'm open to suggestions and comments.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Last piece of advice: As shown by the differing opinions in this thread, identifying nut hands is tricky. In the pub poker league where I deal, a few months back we had a promotion where anyone with the nuts got a $1 scratch off lottery ticket. While we had several people shove pre-flop with AA, and WERE given the ticket when nobody called, there were several discussions on the showdown whether or not a hand was the nuts. That's the kinds of issues this bet is going to generate.

Thanks again for your time.

If NutJack side-bet jackpots are allowed to be won before the hand is run-out, this makes it a lot easier to hit nut hands and win the jackpot!! Like, if a player gets pocket AA, he can make the NutJack side-bet, and then go all in and hope everyone else folds to him. If that happens, and IF THE HAND IS EVALUATED FOR BEING "THE NUTS" AS A TWO-CARD HAND, then he would win the enqueuing area bets and the NutJack jackpot, ON THE SPOT, and the dealer wouldn't need to run out the hand.

I like this, DJTeddyBear! I like it a lot!!!

So now I need to consider a whole new set of possibilities.... I need to think about evaluating 2-card, 5-card and 6-card hands for NutJack side-bets, and clarify the rules about when the hand is ready for NutJack determination.

The down side is: can dealers be trained to recognize nut hands in 2-card, 5-card, 6-card and 7-card scenarios? I think its a piece of cake.

First off, this only happens when everyone else folds to a single player, so that should make it straight-fo4rward... if more than 1 player are in contention, the hand must be run-out as usual.

If everyone else folds to a player who has already made the NutJack side-bet, then I can make a slight modification to the "Run-Out Option" where the player can chose to either keep his cards hidden and take the enqueuing region money (as before) or "Run the hand out, NutJack-style": The lone players cards are turned up, and if he has the nut for whatever number of cards are in play, then he wins the enqueuing region money and the jackpot. If not, the dealer keeps dealing the board out, one phase at a time... along the way, same rules are in effect. If he fails to obtain the nut on the river, he does NOT win the jackpot OR the money in the enqueuing region.

Now the bet is really tasty... if you can just edge out the other players from the table, now you have a way better chance at hitting the nut, and you can still use it as a bluff, and not have to expose your hole cards. This is the bets of all worlds. This might make the bet so attractive, I won't need seed the jackpot as discussed in the game variations.

I will write this up, and I think I will take a poll to ask how difficult it would be to deal the game like this.

Thanks for pointing this possibility out to me, DJ, I honestly didn't even consider it, and it might make this a super-cool part of the game.

Quote: discflicker

So now I need to consider a whole new set of possibilities.... I need to think about evaluating 2-card, 5-card and 6-card hands for NutJack side-bets, and clarify the rules about when the hand is ready for NutJack determination.

I don't mean to be negative on this concept, but the last thing you need to do is spend time on looking at more payout options based on 2, 5, or 6 card hands.

IMHO, you should figure out whether any of the multiple game concepts you have here can be a clear simple game explained to players by dealers in a single sentence of 25 words or less......and that is a long sentence or two short ones.

You need to go way simpler on this concept to avoid misunderstandings by players, dealers, etc. It must be obvious what wins to anyone in the game. If there is any doubt or confusion, the game won't work because those are the last thing a poker room manager needs on his floor.

Quote: Paradigm

Quote: discflicker

So now I need to consider a whole new set of possibilities.... I need to think about evaluating 2-card, 5-card and 6-card hands for NutJack side-bets, and clarify the rules about when the hand is ready for NutJack determination.

I don't mean to be negative on this concept, but the last thing you need to do is spend time on looking at more payout options based on 2, 5, or 6 card hands.

IMHO, you should figure out whether any of the multiple game concepts you have here can be a clear simple game explained to players by dealers in a single sentence of 25 words or less......and that is a long sentence or two short ones.

You need to go way simpler on this concept to avoid misunderstandings by players, dealers, etc. It must be obvious what wins to anyone in the game. If there is any doubt or confusion, the game won't work because those are the last thing a poker room manager needs on his floor.

Right on the money and exactly what I've mentioned already.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: Paradigm

Quote: discflicker

So now I need to consider a whole new set of possibilities.... I need to think about evaluating 2-card, 5-card and 6-card hands for NutJack side-bets, and clarify the rules about when the hand is ready for NutJack determination.

I don't mean to be negative on this concept, but the last thing you need to do is spend time on looking at more payout options based on 2, 5, or 6 card hands.

IMHO, you should figure out whether any of the multiple game concepts you have here can be a clear simple game explained to players by dealers in a single sentence of 25 words or less......and that is a long sentence or two short ones.

You need to go way simpler on this concept to avoid misunderstandings by players, dealers, etc. It must be obvious what wins to anyone in the game. If there is any doubt or confusion, the game won't work because those are the last thing a poker room manager needs on his floor.

Right on the money and exactly what I've mentioned already.


ZCore13

I had the opportunity to tag along on someone else's pitch to a table game director recently. It was a side bet for roulette and the pitchman went on for several minutes describing how to bet it, how much it pays, etc. It wasn't the most complicated concept but it wasn't exactly straightforward either (and it was very non-intuitive for the typical American player). After a few more minutes of Q&A, the director told him flat-out: look, when it's 2 AM and my players are drunk, my dealers have maybe 20-30 seconds to explain your game to them or they'll just forget it.

In other words, Marty, what everyone is telling you is spot-on. You don't need an elevator pitch, you need a "walking past the table" pitch. If you can't explain at least the gist of your new bet in the time it takes players to walk past the table, that's what they'll do. If you get them to stop with a 5-second description, you then have about 20 more to fill in the details. For example, here's my quick stab at the passline:
"A first roll of 7 or 11 wins; 2, 3, or 12 loses; and any other number you have to roll again before a 7 in order to win."
If that elicits something like "what if I roll a 3 after the first roll?" then you can go into more specifics.

You need to be able to describe your game with the same level of concision.

Quote: MathExtremist

... the director told him flat-out: look, when it's 2 AM and my players are drunk, my dealers have maybe 20-30 seconds to explain your game to them or they'll just forget it.

I think by "forget it" you mean "not bother".

It reminds me of the time when I stepped up to an empty table for some game I hadn't seen before, and asked the dealer how it works. He said, "You put your money down, and the casino makes it go away."

I been getting emails from Buzzard who says hi to WoW and he also believes the game is too complex as I have described it. I will try to do exactly what everyone is suggesting here. I just needed to work out exactly what it is, and now I think I have a clear description:

In a game of Texas-Hold-em poker, you can a make a "NJ-side-bet" that your hand is unbeatable. The NJ-side-bet can be made at ante for $1, at pre-flop for $5 or on the flop for $25. At the showdown, everyone who has made the NJ-side-bet is evaluated to see if they have an unbeatable hand, and the jackpot is paid to those that do. Any NJ-side-bets made that don't result in an unbeatable hand are accumulated into the jackpot. If everyone else folds to a player who has made the NJ-side-bet, the evaluation is done only for the cards already dealt, so if you have pocket AA and everyone has folded to you, your 2-card hand wins the jackpot.

The other details about the enqueuing area, "first-nut" , and the "run-out option" can be explained as needed.

ONE QUESTION: Is this simple enough or should I shit-can the entire effort?

Thanks again for everyone's time and interest!

Quote: discflicker

....everyone who has made the NJ-side-bet is evaluated to see if they have an unbeatable hand and the jackpot is paid to those that do.

"THOSE" that do???

I'm beginning to question if YOU know what a nut hand is. There is no need to evaluate everyone's hand. Whoever has the nuts, will, by default, win the main pot. All you gotta check is that one player's hand!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm beginning to question if YOU know what a nut hand is. There is no need to evaluate everyone's hand. Whoever has the nuts, will, by default, when the main pot. All you gotta check is that one player's hand!

There's also a big difference between the best possible hand and an unbeatable hand.


ZCore13

Quote: DJTeddyBear

"THOSE" that do???

I'm beginning to question if YOU know what a nut hand is. There is no need to evaluate everyone's hand. Whoever has the nuts, will, by default, win the main pot. All you gotta check is that one player's hand!

There can be MORE THAN ONE winner of the main pot in certain scenarios that are very common, like > 1 player holding an ace among their hole cards and quads appear on the board.

All-in-all, there are two scenarios that aren't obvious, this "SHARED -NUT" situation is one, and the other is when everyone folds to a player who has already made the NJ-side bet, I have them both covered in my one paragraph description.

MathEx's one-sentence description of craps is terse, but I don't think it's complete or comprehensible for a total newbie. In describing the NJ-side-bet, I have to assume players are already familiar with poker.

Maybe I should've specified "After the showdown, the evaluation is performed for all players who win the table's main pot...", but the wording seems a bit tricky.

If there are side-pots for lesser amounts that need to be paid out in all-in scenarios (for example, a player makes the NJ-side-bet and goes all-in when he gets pocket AA at pre-flop, he remains in the hand through the showdown, when this exact scenario occurs of quads on the board occurs). The dealer needs to evaluate these hands for winning the table pot, and THEN, AFTER this showdown is done, the main-pot winners who have made the NJ-side-bet are THEN evaluated for unbeatable hands, and this might get divvied among > 1 winner.

Is that clear or does it complicate the one-paragraph description?

Quote: discflicker

...Is this simple enough or should I shit-can the entire effort?...

No!

I think you have an interesting concept and then have tried to tweak it - are you actually trying to make it a betting tool that can enhance your opportunities to bluff.

Suppose your objectives were for a side-bet made (a) with the antes OR (b) before the flop (you decide) that at showdown you will have an ("unbeatable"/<some other phrase>) hand that uses at least one of your hole cards. Personally I should forget the 2-5-6 hand options, limit the times you can make the bet and probably say it's your responsibility to get to showdown.

As some stage you have to work out what the payout is and where it comes from. Suppose I'm a poker room with 5 tables; I'm guessing each table keeps its own jackpot pool and there's a card room carry over/build-up pot from yesterday. I suggest you get (some of the table's pot or a fixed payout) if you win but if you get a good enough hand you scoop the pot.


However now put yourself in the casino's position who might be thinking of some kind of bad-beat or best-hand-of-the-week jackpot. You have to come up with a selling point why they should choose your bet over that one - that is why it HAS to be simple.

ME's explanation of the Pass Line is exactly what you need, it actually explains every aspect of the Pass Line that a newbie needs to know.....7/11 winner, 2/3/12 loser any other number and you need to roll that number again before rolling a 7 to win. Exact, succinct, done!!

The problem you have is the concept of the "Nuts" evidently isn't as easy as you thought based on the various opinions expressed on this board.........a board full of gambling enthusiasts, industry folks and the like. The folks most likely to make this side bet are not going to be your sharpest poker players, they will be "action junkies" vs. poker pros.......the action junkies will likely have the least clear concept of the Nuts.

Then you have layered on top of the Nuts concept, a progressive feature vs. just a pay table game........equals more complication.

Then you have 2 card Nuts, 5 card Nuts, 6 card Nuts and 7 card Nuts........more options that need to be explained.

Then you have multiple minimum bets based on the Street that the bet is made on.......$1 pre flop, then $5 post flop, then $25 at showdown, one more thing to explain and then police compliance by the dealer.........trust me they don't need one more thing to police in a live poker game.

There is a lot of tinsel to take off the tree here before you have anything close to ready for market.

Here is my free input, value it for what it cost you: Make it a pre-deal bet only, for $1. Make it so you have to make it to the Showdown to win..........this means only one evaluation of 7 cards..........no 2, 5, 6 card nut hands work. If the hand doesn't make it to Showdown every bet is swept into the progressive pool........making it to Showdown is a requirement to get paid.

And call the bet what it is........"The Nuts". What is a Nut Jack? Do I need to have a Jack in my hand to qualify. Simple, easy, no extra understanding required.

Suddenly look what you got: "The Nuts" is a $1 Progressive side bet for live Texas Hold'em made before you receive your initial two cards. You win if your hand makes it to the Showdown and you have an unbeatable hand..........also known as "The Nuts".

Where is that Staple's Red Button when you need it.........."that was easy"!

Have ME get your math done, file a provisional patent quickly (as my guess is this qualifies as public disclosure) and you are on your way. Make sure you have about $25,000 set aside to cover the expenses that will be incurred to get the game to market and the time to be relentless in your pursuit of that elusive first placement. It is a very tough road you are headed down and not for the under capitalized or fully employed without a flexible work schedule.